U.S. Supreme Court could derail partisan goals in Texas redistricting

As the Texas redistricting maps for the state House, Senate and Congress head to the Supreme Court, the partisan attempts used to manipulate the drawing of political lines could backfire on Republicans and Democrats.

Texas Republican lawmakers used their majorities in the Legislature to carve up new lines that would give them two of four new congressional seats, even though Latinos account for the majority of the 4 million new residents.

Mexican-American lawmakers, though, worked willingly with the GOP to carve out majority-minority districts that would ensure Latino elected representatives.

A casualty of the redistricting goals by Republicans and Latinos was Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, an unabashed liberal whose Democrat district was made conservatives by Republicans who wanted him ousted.

Latino Democrats appeared willing to sacrifice their colleague in exchange for a minority-majority seat that included Austin and San Antonio.

Doggett was later spared by a federal court in San Antonio, who felt Republicans overreached in the redistricting maps and redrew political lines.

That drew howls from Republicans, who claimed the court-drawn maps unfairly favored Democrats – even though two of the three federal judges on the panel were appointed by Republicans.

Things came to a head last week when Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott successfully received a U.S. Supreme Court stay on primary elections for state House, Senate and U.S. congressional primaries until the high court can hear arguments in the case on Jan. 9.

Involvement of courts indicates an “egregious wrongdoing” on the part of the Republicans in the Legislature, said Larry Hufford, a St. Mary’s University professor in San Antonio.

But Democratic behavior in the case is also suspect, Hufford said.

“Gerrymandering districts to have as many homogeneous districts as possible, meaning overwhelmingly Latino, or African-American or Anglo, is unfortunate,” Hufford said.

The result is that lawmakers represent districts with an overwhelming political majority. That leads to the congressional gridlock seen in Washington.

“You don’t have to compromise, you can be a purist. The way we have gerrymandered districts to be uncompetitive means we have weakened the Democratic process,’’ Hufford said.

Conservatives have used a divide and conquer strategy to strengthen their hand, while minority groups worked as willing accomplices, according to several political experts.

“Liberals, who ought to be working together for policy, have engaged in divisive politics by placing race and ethnicity above the common good,” Hufford said.

Texas lawmakers have been pushed by the two major political parties for congressional gains that could help Democrats regain control of the House, they need 26 seats, or help Republicans maintain it.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said last month that Democrats could pick up as many as three to five seats in Texas depending on a court-redrawn map and challenges to incumbents.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the interim lines were an activist court’s effort to “run up the score for Democrats.”
Either side could now see setbacks.

The court could restore some of the original Republican maps, handing Democrats a defeat.
And although Republicans applauded the Supreme Court intervention, it could cut against Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s shaky Republican presidential bid.

Delaying Texas party primaries until April could impact Perry’s campaign, which would benefit from an earlier March state primary to help right is lilting campaign if Perry manages to survive the first gauntlet of presidential primary and caucus states.